204 SlNO-lRANICA 



of important plants than any other people of Asia (and I should even 

 venture to add, of Europe), the exact and critical history of a plant- 

 cultivation can be written only by heeding all data and consulting all 

 sources that can be gathered from every quarter. The evidence accruing 

 from the Semites, from Egypt, Greece, and Rome, from the Arabs, 

 India, Camboja, Annam, Malayans, Japan, etc., must be equally 

 requisitioned. Only by such co-ordination may an authentic result be 

 hoped for. 



The reader desirous of information on the scientific literature 

 of the Chinese utilized in this publication may be referred to Bret- 

 schneider's "Botanicon Sinicum" (part I). 1 It is regrettable that no 

 Pen ts*ao (Herbal) of the T'ang period has as yet come to light, and 

 that for these works we have to depend on the extracts given in later 

 books. The loss of the Hu pen ts'ao ("Materia Medica of the Hu") 

 and the &u hu kwo fan ("Prescriptions from the Hu Countries") is 

 especially deplorable. I have directly consulted the Cen lei pen ts*ao, 

 written by T'ah Sen-wei in 1108 (editions printed in 1521 and 1587), 

 the Pen ts'ao yen i by K'ou Tsun-si of 1116 in the edition of Lu Sin- 

 yuan, and the well-known and inexhaustible Pen ts'ao kan mu by Li 

 Si-Sen, completed in 1578. With all its errors and inexact quotations, 

 this remains a monumental work of great erudition and much solid 

 information. Of Japanese Pen ts'ao (Honzo) I havt used the Yamato 

 hon&o, written by Kaibara Ekken in 1709, and the Honzo komoku keimo 

 by Ono Ranzan. Wherever possible, I have resorted to the original 

 source-books. Of botanical works, the Kwan k'unfan p'u, the Hwa p*u, 

 the d wu mih $i t'u k'ao, and several Japanese works, have been utilized. 

 The Yu yah tsa tsu has yielded a good many contributions to the plants 

 of Po-se and Fu-lin; several Fu-lin botanical names hitherto unexplained 

 I have been able to identify with their Aramaic equivalents. Although 

 these do not fall within the subject of Sino-Iranica, but Sino-Semitica, 

 it is justifiable to treat them in this connection, as the Fu-lin names 

 are given side by side with the Po-se names. Needless to say, I have 

 carefully read all accounts of Persia and the Iranian nations of Central 

 Asia contained in the Chinese Annals, and the material to be found 

 there constitutes the basis and backbone of this investigation. 2 



There is a class of literature which has not yet been enlisted for the 



1 We are in need, however, of a far more complete and critical history of the 

 scientific literature of the Chinese. 



2 The non-sinological reader may consult to advantage E. H. PARKER, Chinese 

 Knowledge of Early Persia (Imp. and Asiatic Quarterly Review, Vol. XV, 1903, 

 pp. 144-169) for the general contents of the documents relating to Persia. Most 

 names of plants and other products have been omitted in Parker's article. 



